November 1, 2010

Among the many elections tomorrow is Proposition B in Missouri, which is designed to stop puppy mills by increasing regulations and penalties on dog breeders. As it stands, Missouri is the puppy mill capital of the nation because of the lax rules. The Kansas City Star explains well what the Proposition would change. One would assume this would easily pass, because who does not love puppies (I mean, look at that cute little guy and see if you can still vote against stopping puppy mills--how's that for political messaging)? But, some breeders have been spending money to fight this Proposition, and some TEA Party groups have also voiced opposition because they see it as some nefarious government takeover. Joining them in taking this line, Missouri Baptist Convention leaders have also urged a "no" vote. They attack the Humane Society as an "extremist group" with a "radical agenda" (and wrongly state some of the supposed positions of the group). But is it really so extreme and radical to say puppies should not be stacked in crates on top of each other so that they poop and pee on the ones below them? Is it really so extreme and radical to demand that puppies be given personal attention and an opportunity to run around outside of the cage? What happened to the biblical commands to care for creation? Proposition B may not be the perfect solution, but it is clear that one cannot honestly claim there is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Additionally, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy; instead, each measure should be judged on its own merits. It is time for moral leadership.

Are you kidding? Chastising the christians because they are daring to do the right thing instead of believing the lies of HSUS? Your post is hateful and contains so many lies. Don't have time to correct your 'errors' and lies as I have to go vote NO on Prop B.